JUDGMENT 14.9.2010 Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by complainant for enhancement of compensation is directed against the order dated 6.8.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No.241of 2009 was allowed with meager costs of Rs.200/- only and OP was directed to refund Rs.190/- the excess cost of the rod charged by it. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the Complainant placed an order for purchase of curtains and rods (inclusive of stitching and fitting charges) with OP, who issued a rough bill Annexure C-1. The Complainant then paid the whole amount on 8.12.2008 and demanded the bill, upon which OP assured to issue the same after the completion of the work as the amount could increase or decrease at the time of completion of the work. It was alleged that OP started the work and fitted the curtains of inferior quality. After the completion of the work, the complainant found that a part of the rod was left by the OP which did not look to be of the length of 20ft. Doubted at the OP, the Complainant again measured the same and found the measurement of rod to be 17.4 ft. in length whereas he had been charged for 20ft. in length. Further the hood on one side of the rod was also missing and he immediately approached OP and mentioned about the quality of cloth, missing hood and also asked about the Bill. Initially, OP refused to issue the bill but with great persuasion it issued fresh Invoice No.916, dated 8.12.2008 to the Complainant, a copy of which is Annexure C-3. However, when the Complainant asked about the length and missing hood, the OP started misbehaving with him. Thereafter, the complainant approached Prince Handloom for the measurement and it was found that the length was 17.4ft and one hood was also missing. The complainant also got served a legal notice dated 27.1.2009 upon OP but to no effect. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. 4. On the other hand, the case of OP before the District Forum was that the Complainant ordered for the curtains and rods (inclusive of stitching and fitting charges) for which an advance of Rs.1500/- was given by him at the time of placing an order. The charges for the fitting including labour, rings, hoods etc. were also included in the price of the rod . As per the trade practice of OP, the charges were calculated on running feet basis ; for example for a measurement of rod of 3.5 ft., charges were calculated for 4 ft. and further charges were levied by adding charges per ft. for the length exceeding 4ft and the said charges were fully within the knowledge of the Complainant. It was pleaded that the cloth of curtains and rods were the same as selected by the Complainant. The estimate annexure C-1 contained the actual costs charged by OP for the job done and after finishing of the job, complainant was issued bill annexure C-3. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. Still dissatisfied, complainant has come up in this appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The only noticeable point raised on behalf of the complainant is that here in the instant case deficiency in service was found on the part of OP by the District Forum but inspite of that no amount on account of compensation was awarded to the complainant. It has also been argued that the amount of Rs.200/- on account of litigation expenses is also very less. On the other hand, counsel for OP submitted that since no evidence with regard to inferior quality of the curtains was produced, so, complainant was not entitled to any compensation. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above submissions raised on behalf of the parties and written arguments placed on file by the complainant and find that here in the instant case before us it is well proved that the rod provided for the curtains by OP was 17.4 ft but he (OP) charged the price of 20ft length rod and on that count OP had charged Rs.180/- in excess as also observed by the District Forum. As per annexure C-1, a cash memo issued by OP, the complainant was given 20.80 mts curtain cloth @ Rs.170/- per meter for a sum of Rs.3536/-. There is also another quantity of curtain cloth to the tune of 17.90 meters. According to said cash memo, the stitching charges of the curtains @ Rs.20/- have been shown to be Rs.360/- whereas the rate of 20 ft length rod @ Rs.90/- per ft has been mentioned to be Rs.1800/- and the total amount received through cash memo from the complainant is shown to be Rs.7128/-. However, in the bill annexure C-3 no detail has been given of the aforesaid items and only the bill of curtain cloth of 67.9 meters has been given for a lumpsum amount of Rs.7129.50. Thus, it is made out that the cash memo C-1 and bill C-3 do not tally with each other in respect of the particulars of the items shown therein. In fact this kind of issuance of bills and cash memos also amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of OP. The factum of deficiency in service arrived at by the District Forum also goes unchallenged here in the instant case before us as OP has not filed any appeal against any of the findings arrived at by the District Forum. As stated above, OP has charged the cost of rod in excess i.e. for a length of 20 ft instead of 17.4 ft. All these facts narrated above go a longway to show that there was not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Therefore, taking into account the matter in its entirety, we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum should have also awarded reasonable amount of compensation to the complainant. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances we feel that a lumpsum award of compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/- would meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. 8. In the result, this appeal succeeds with costs of Rs.2200/-. During the course of arguments we were informed that the earlier order passed by the District Forum has already been complied with. So, now complainant is further held entitled to the amount of Rs. 7200/ ( Rs.5000 +2200) and the same shall be paid by OP within one month from the date copy of the order is received, failing which it shall be liable to pay penal interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing this appeal till actual realization. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | |
